Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real behavioral context on top: only currently valid offers are returned unless include_expired=true, and sort defaults to relevance when a query is present. The scope caveat (Joinville/SC only) and the 'consulta only' statement further set expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Short, front-loaded lines each carrying a distinct rule (filters, validity default, sort modes, examples, coverage, read-only). No filler; the examples are compact and illustrative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, defaults, pagination and read-only behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: market must go in the market field rather than the query text, the sort default depends on whether text is supplied, and pagination uses the cursor. These are genuine clarifications rather than restatements.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource ('Busca ofertas') with the exact filter dimensions (produto, categoria, mercado, preço máximo, vencimento hoje) and pagination. It clearly separates itself from siblings like top_deals, find_cheapest and get_offer by being the general filtered search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives actionable routing rules: put the market in 'market', not in free text, and points to list_categories for category slugs. It also states the geographic scope limitation and that it is read-only (no selling/reserving/delivery). It stops short of naming explicit alternatives for cases like 'cheapest product' vs find_cheapest, so not a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.